[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah its pretty ridiculous that Andrew Sullivan is being presented as either a) a model of Catholic faith or b) an expert on theology in general.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think he is, nor does he think he is. Just a guess from reading the entire dialog. It's a debate between an atheist & a "religious moderate". "Moderate" being a subjective term, of course; I'm sure you & others would rather label him a "religious liberal". The truth is, though, that lots of Catholics (& Protestants for that matter) are of the "moderate" type. It is these people that Harris has the most problem with. I can see his point, even though I've reserved judgment as to which group I think is "worse".

In his first letter, Harris sums up what this debate is about:

[ QUOTE ]
Given my view of faith, I think that religious "moderation" is basically an elaborate exercise in self-deception, while you seem to think it is a legitimate and intellectually defensible alternative to fundamentalism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the debate is best summed up here:

Harris says:
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who thinks he knows for sure that Jesus was born of virgin or that the Qur'an is the perfect word of the Creator of the universe is lying. Either he is lying to himself, or to everyone else. In neither case should such false certainties be celebrated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sullivan does not like that, and calls Harris "intolerant".

Harris responds:

[ QUOTE ]
What if I told you that I am certain that I have an even number of cells in my body? What are the chances that I am in a position to have actually counted my cells (there are on the order of 100 trillion) and counted them correctly? Would it be unfair (or worse, "intolerant") of you to dismiss my assertion as either a product of self-deception or outright dishonesty? Note that this claim has a 50% chance of being true (unlike claims about virgin births and resurrections), and yet it is patently ridiculous. Some claims to knowledge-even about facts that have a high order of probability--immediately brand their claimants as intellectually dishonest. Please forgive me for saying that it is extraordinarily obvious that neither you, nor the pope, nor any other Christian is in a position to know that Jesus was actually born of a virgin or that he will one day return to earth wielding magic powers.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the coup de grâce:

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to have taken particular offense at my imputing self-deception and/or dishonesty to the faithful. I make no apologies for this. One of the greatest problems with religion is that it is built, to a remarkable degree, upon lies. Mommy claims to know that Granny went straight to heaven after she died. But Mommy doesn't actually know this. The truth is that, while Mommy may be rigorously honest on any other subject, in this instance she doesn't want to distinguish between what she really knows (i.e. what she has good reasons to believe) and 1) what she wants to be true, or 2) what will keep her children from grieving too much in Granny's absence. She is lying--either to herself or to her children--but we've all agreed not to talk about it. Rather than teach our children to grieve, we teach them to lie to themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]